looking to the establish a policy with the board of supervisors that gives us a -- to support this before looking at any particular project. we have present proposed policy to the capital planning committee on november 19th and we will go back for action this month and we are looking to the bring the city policy to the board of interferes in early 2013 and so as brad said i'll go over the policy and then brad will go over three major projects that we are proposing the use of i f d for. and so the port commission is very well aware in 1969, we got our 54 piers nine react activated and we have an extraordinarily large deferred maintenance problem in the

magnitude of $2.2 million and what the port earned as an enterprise is not enough to deal with the assets and the defined problems and so one of our major strategies that the port has initiated in the last decade is to find other source and is so we can be successful leveraging the important assets for the future and so this chart really shows all of the growth of all of these other source that are helping ut to solve our problems and the joe bonds that we just spoke of have been important for park improvementings and i s d which, is in the bright blue is a major proposal to help us build critical flay structure for areas that otherwise, we could not afford. and as a commission m o there is an exhibit a in here in your pact

that provides much more detail and there is a lot of detail under pinning this expert aba 18 that allowed united states to take the value from the sea walls for the piers a b 1199 that is the pier 70 state chair which allows us to utilize it's city's share of i f d but the state's fair for pier 70 and trust sexual deflation and 330 and two recent pieces for america's cub a b-6 64 and a b two twoan 599 and brad is much better equipment to answer legislation on this and finances district proceeds are basically tax increpts that is baseline established and growth above that baseline of what pedestrian

interest tax and so it's similar to increment financing and these are at the growth and tax of project's cause that otherwise go to the taxing entities pribblely the generally fund and we hold those proceeds to repay the investment and infrastructure. so no, to the proposed policy. there has been a long tradition both in the charter and in the burton act that the harbor fund is a self supporting the port is a self supporting enterprise and the city obviously, we pay for that was we purchase from the city and we want to maintain a balance so that the 50 city is not subsidizing the hash fund for our activities and the general services that we require from the city and so we have under taken a nexxus analysis

in 2004 and eight that looks at the balance of payment and the next is the methodology that ports with long term leases where the tenants pay tax they pay ampleel tax to be provided these services like any other taxpayer and so the nexxus analysis looks at the unleased land and infrastructure on property and compares the cost of services to our work order bundle and that has shown in 2004 and 2,008 that we are in balance and so since our profile proposal something taking least lands and capturing taxes for city services we are looking to find a new way and methodology to make sure that the city is whole throughout the life of the prompt. it will -- imi'll take a bit more about that but we are looking to mayor sure hat city is net positive from the development project and that we can ensure that over title through a time of flex

type of nexxus analysis: so we are proposing to perform an i f d property and establish areas encompassing each project site. consistent with i s d law, the i s d proceeds would be used for these list of uses here pierces piers and sea level rise and typewriterle remediation, hillic rehabilitation and port maritime. so, we are proposing this criteria for the city as it looks to see the request for i s d is a good purpose as minimum criteria. so, first, the proposed i f d would be on portland. if there is a case of annexing none portland it will

be looked at on a case by case analysis and this would be eight washington or c well lot 851 is a good example of this type of situation where there is parcel and annexing into district and schedule is a adopting an infrastructure financing plan and it's a two step process that starts with inferring the district and then chem back with the infrastructure financing plan and actually specific the improvements from that district and priority improvements water front district, consistent with i f d in the investment would be consistent with the law obviously, the water front plan and our own capital plan and economic benefit we would always produce analysis for the policy makers that show the total tax revenues to the general opportunity fund and other economic development besides

board of trustees and that way the city can review the position of general fund in making this contribution and where the state and city -- where there is state and city matching where we can -- secure the state chair for pier 70, we would make it a priority and the amount of allocated would be 65 clients and up to 90 cents in pier 70 and access incementation is the amount not needed from the district need today pate necessary infrastructure outside of the bonding period of 30 years so from year 30 to year 45 it would be up to policy makers to decide where to allocate those proceeds either back to the city's general fund or to improve the sea wall if the port issues revenue bonds, we would

request that service coverage at this point we are not project proposing the issue gets for the disproment that i will describe in just a moment and we will as part of the i f d identifyfunding sowter for maintenance and this is an ongoing concern for the city is the cost of maintenance the pure cost of ownership is not always described up front and so this is an important point for the city. in terms of the port i f d formation, we are -- the city has through resolution done the infrastructure financing district staff city staff is developing the plans for each project area which will be separate appendixes and we are asking that the d p w and s f p review all of the horizontal extrusive proposal and is third

party estimates that were very sure that she is shes have good very muchs prior to city action and we want the capital planning committee do this extrusive make recommendations to the full board for each i f d a pen appendix. now, obviously, this is an he is wees one to prove for the sale scale of these project and to leverage none city resource and is continue best practices of city participation. so, this is graphic just shows the a investment post the adoption of the water front land use plan and you can see there are seven scene million dollars of new value since 2,000 and that is

for the exploretory and at&t park, pier one and disprawn if we have the crews terminal project for one 10 million or $827 million of investments since the adoption of the water front plan. the three project that weave i'll that brad will be talking about in a moment is at a much larger scale in these three proposed project and you will see as you look at the project that there is about 400 and $10 million of planned i f d proceeds for infrastructure costs in this project and so this policy is really going to attract huge -- a much larger amount of private investment than we have seen since the adoption of the private land units lan and to pay for critical city owned land use structure and with that, brad will talk you through the project.

>> thank you elane. and we do think that this is potentially a game changer for the port. i want to make one minor correction. we have not calculated yet the amount of i f d ass that are captured in pier 70 and it can be the location that we capture the tax increment and it could be that these projects will reach a billion dollars of investment from the i f d actual and that is 3 billion in private investment and you plus up to a billion dollar in public investment. each of the project

>> the annual celebration of hardly strictly bluegrass is always a hit now completing itself 12 year of music in the incredible golden gate park. >> this is just the best park to come to. it's safe. it's wonderful and such a fun time of the year. there is every kind of music you can imagine and can wander around and go from one stage to another and just have fun. >> 81 bands and six stages and no admission. this is hardly strictly bluegrass. >> i love music and peace. >> i think it represents what

is great about the bay area. >> everyone is here for the music and the experience. this is why i live here. >> the culture out here is amazing. it's san francisco. >> this is a legacy of the old warren hel ment and receive necessary funding for ten years after his death. >> there is a legacy that started and it's cool and he's done something wonderful for the city and we're all grateful. hopefully we will keep this thing going on for years and years to come. y questions we'd

be more than happy to answer them. i also have the inspector here who has performed those inspections. there is a tremendous amount of detail to this. i will tell you that if you look at the complaint, it's 20 pages, i stopped counting after referencing the eighth and ninth order of abatement. so, staff feels very strongly that no additional time should be given in the case. >> questions? >> appellant? my name is susanna shaw and i'm appealing. basically what happened, when i went to a director's hearing on august 9th, four of the cases i had no idea they even existed.

there was one posting on my building at 10 16 through 10 20 noe street. and the tenant there gave me the posting. then i went to the director on august 9th. that was the first time i had ever had any knowledge of the other four cases. they are from 2009. my address where i live is 3825 24th street. and those four cases involved units in my building and the building next door, but there were no postings. when i got to the hearing and i saw those cases, i never received them in 2009. i had no knowledge of them whatsoever. when i got the cases, i went upstairs and got the cases.

i immediately noticed that all four of them contained items. i went into -- i was in a bankruptcy -- i have to backtrack a little bit. i bought this r -- this was originally a 6 unit building on church. i bought it in 1990 and i was warned by the former owners that i had very difficult tenants and they had been partners for 30 years and they were selling because they couldn't handle the people. and i was [speaker not understood], and i thought i'll be able to deal with the problems. but they were very difficult tenants and i gave a legitimate increase in 1994 and they called the housing department. they got three other units to complain plus the building where the fire was, 33 56 24th

street. * and i had three n.o.v.s filed there. there were rent strikes. i had 16 death threat calls by the same person, hanging up and calling back and a sign on my door, lynch the landlord. anyway, i went into bankruptcy partly a lot because of the rent strikes and i finally [speaker not understood] in 2005. at that time i had three n.o.v.s on my building, 3825 through 29, and there were three n.o.v.s on 3831 through 35. and then there were about five on the building where the fire was. and i went down to housing and i wanted to start clearing the properties and i wanted to start on the building next door. i condo'd that, so, i wanted to get three separate loans.

and ivan [speaker not understood], i don't know if he's still there, brought out the file. one of the lists had already [speaker not understood] already come out and marked the list with about 20 items in red ink, each item in red ink and circled in red ink. he turned this back momentarily with a file machine. i don't know. and i said, ivan, someone already came out and checked this list. and he wheeled around and he said, you forged that. anyway, he grabbed the file. he wouldn't give me the copies. what had happened is these three cases appeared on my file report and you can't refinance your property until you clear the abatement. the lender will not go behind outstanding abatement.

so, i had to clear them. anyway, i came back the next day. i had never met rosemary boske, and i was expecting -- i had three condo conversions, this building -- in my building. dealing with the building department, very level headed, professional. that's what i was expecting. she came out with david gonia, who is the senior inspector, and ivan sarkeny and all three of them screaming at me in unison that i had forged this list, they were going to send it to the city attorney and prosecute me. anyway, what happened is i finally had to get my attorney in there to come and get these three cases. and i cleared them in 2006. but now they're reappearing on

these four notices that i got from 2009. one thing i have to say about just continuing about what happened, i did clear these cases in 2006. at the same time, then david gonia came out there. he's now denying that he ever cleared them. and with isabelle olaveras, another housing inspector. at the same time i didn't know this, isabelle a went to my noe street property and entered the passage way, which is unlocked, twice and wrote four pages of items including the back staircase which i had completed with a permit in 2001. it was completely redone. we took it down and put up a new staircase with a permit plans.

and i realized at that point that i had targeted by the housing department and basically [inaudible] building rosemary responsible for keeping up a toxic atmosphere in her department [speaker not understood] for years. she could stop it at any time, but she is keeping this going. frankly, i'm 62 and i can't take it any more. she said that i do things without permits. that's not true. i had these buildings were condo converted, at least two buildings. i have their certificates for final completion. i have the electrical permits for the heaters. i get permits all the time because as i said, i'm used to dealing with the building department and very level headed people. anyway, what happened was -- >> i'm sorry, it's 7 minutes, time is up.

i'm holding here -- they deny that i asked them, when i filed this appeal, i didn't know i had 7 minutes. >> five matters? it's up to you. they're your rules and procedures. because there's five separate matters, the department has presented in one, i'm not sure it's fair to limit her to the 7 minutes. >> okay. >> but it's up to you. >> three more minutes. okay. anyway, i asked them when i filed this appeal about those three cases. and she looked it up on the computer and said i had never cleared any case on that building. and anyway, i came down here the next day and one of the revocations is on file. i cleared three and it's on each one.

it's number 167 8 06. and what happened, i found out they destroyed all the case downstairs two years ago after [speaker not understood]. so, some things did not make it onto the computer, the records. i'm talking about the records department. some things did not make it onto the computer. and i mean, it's not even recorded that case, you know, whenever it was recorded. so, but i did go out -- i did abate those cases. and what's going on is they're wanting -- the reason these cases are included is they're highly inflammatory items. after the fire happened, there was a lawsuit filed because i didn't have enough liability insurance and the city